Talk:Climate sceptic

proposal to redirect to a new page on climate sceptic[edit]

The term climate sceptic is a well used term in the literature but there is nothing in Wikipedia to explain exactly what is meant by climate sceptic. I propose an article is started to address this shortfall. Isonomia (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well wikipedia isn't a dictionary so it couldn't just be a definition so just writing what is meant by the term wouldn't make it a viable article. Taking that into account though if you can make an interesting article about it then why not. Dmcq (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be a good idea. But for the moment this page should point at global warming controversy and not denial. Calling a skeptic a denier is just partisan insulting so I'll be redirecting back again. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change skepticism is really just climate change denial under a fake name and most so-called climate skeptics are connected to the climate change denial industry. Wikipedia should not be used to promote propaganda. See: Jacques, P.J., Dunlap, R.E, and Freeman, M. (2008) "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics, 17: 349-85. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576 Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Meanings of the term section in climate change denial. Also environmental scepticism is yet another term again. There is no consensus to describe sceptics at climate change denial, quite the opposite. The global warming controversy article describes the arguments that sceptics might bring up. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq, I think it is you, not me, who needs to read up on the sources and our article on environmental skepticism, because you don't appear to understand that climate skepticism is a subset of environmental skepticism, both of which are a form of denial according to the sources. It doesn't matter how many ExxonMobil reps. you trot out to dispute this. The one in the climate change denial article accuses the Royal Society of being a bunch of conspiracy theorists, so clearly, your understanding of weight is at fault here. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a proper decision on this I guess the talk page of Climate change denial would be the right place to centralize discussion get sufficient eyes. Dmcq (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would much rather see the sources you are using to justify your revert of my edit. Please provide them. Viriditas (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read meanings of the term which has a number of sources. Also it is just your idea environmental scepticism is the same. Sources do not confirm that. I will copy this to the Climate change denial so the talk can be properly done there. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq, you appear to be having great difficulty understanding my comments. I just got through pointing you to Jacques et al. 2008 yet you respond telling me it is "just your idea" and the "sources do not confirm that". How incredibly bizarre! Furthermore, our very own article on environmental scepticism says "this process has been termed a form of denialism". Also, I didn't give you permission to copy this anywhere, yet you went ahead and unilaterally copied it. Again, I ask you, what sources are you using to justify your edits? Please answer this question here, not anywhere else. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion now at Talk:Climate_change_denial#Pointing_Climate_sceptic_to_here Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]